Today, the United States Supreme Court handed down a significant religious liberty decision. In Health and Human Services v. Hobby Lobby, the Court sided with Hobby Lobby, ruling, in essence, that the federal government cannot force closely held corporations to provide health plans that include contraceptives that might induce abortions.
These health plans are required, of course, by the Affordable Care Act, which compels companies of a particular size to furnish health care for employees or to pay significant fines. The Department of Health and Human Services, through a series of decisions, defined the coverage so that it would include a wide range of contraceptive alternatives. Some of those alternatives, arguably, are abortifacients, or drugs that terminate early pregnancies. Hobby Lobby, which is owned and operated as a “closely held” corporation by a family of devout Christians, objected to being required to fund such drugs, primarily due to their religious beliefs. The company argued that the HHS mandates violated their free exercise of religion, which is protected in the First Amendment. Notably, the HHS allowed religious non-profits to opt out of these requirements.
There are several legal issues that flow through this, obviously. One, which was pivotal for the Court’s ruling, was that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993, binds the federal government to respect religious freedom unless it can provide a “compelling interest” for taking that freedom away from someone, and, if it can provide an interest, it must use the “least restrictive means” available when doing so. Basically, under RFRA, the government must demonstrate a serious need to act and its action must be as respectful as possible to religion.
RFRA did not include “corporations” in its protections, but it did include “persons.” In other parts of the federal law (particularly the Dictionary Act), Congress has determined that when it uses the word “persons,” it also includes corporations. This definition, however, does not distinguish between for-profit and non-profit corporations. Sometimes, Congress makes it clear that the law at hand only protects or applies to “people” as individuals and not as legal, corporate entities. There is no such indication in RFRA.
In this sense, the Court had to decide if this was a statutory matter, to be settled by interpreting RFRA, or whether or not it is a Free Exercise matter to be settled through the Constitution. Typically, the Supreme Court handles cases based on statutes if possible and not the Constitution unless there is a clear reason to appeal to the Constitution’s text.
The Supreme Court also had to determine whether or not the HHS mandates did indeed constitute a meaningful religious burden. In other words, is there a real religious issue at work here? While it seems obvious on its face, it is not. Some argued that the disconnect between paying for the policy and whether or not an employee might use the drug was too disconnected to be a burden on the employer’s religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court took all these matters into hand as it reached a 5-4 decision that determined that:
- Corporate entities may “exercise religion” in a way that demands protection.
- Hobby Lobby, as a “closely held” corporation, has legal protection from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
- The connection between the employer’s provision of health care, and the employee’s potential use of abortifacients is close enough to be a significant burden.
- the HHS mandates, regardless of the interest at stake, do not use the “least restrictive means” available to accomplish these interests. There are ways that HHS can accommodate meaningful religious objections, while still requiring companies to provide health care.
- Therefore, the HHS mandates are overturned. Hobby Lobby does not have to provide these particular policies.
The ruling, written by Justice Alito, does NOT, deal with other types of companies. It only involves “closely held” companies where, usually, a small group, like a family, owns and operates the company very directly. The Court seems to imply that the likelihood of exercising religion corporately is connected to the company’s design and legal status. If different sorts of companies sue on these grounds, the Court would have to deal with that issue later.
Also, the ruling does not invalidate the employer mandate for health care coverage. It only requires the HHS to provide a mechanism that allows these companies to NOT pay for these contraceptives. What will that look like? HHS will probably craft a policy soon.
What to make of this? This is a good day for religious liberty. For the Court to draw a hard-line between individuals and companies would require too many Americans to bifurcate themselves, to divide their religious and economic lives. This ruling encourages believers, of all sorts, to integrate their most deeply held values and their actions. This is what we, as Christians, are called to do, so I am thankful the Court has recognized this.
This is another bad day for President Obama. The Democrats have strong commitments to women’s rights and for them those rights–to abortion and contraceptives–ought to trump religious beliefs.
Of course, what this will almost certainly do is shift the burden away from the employer and to the taxpayer. My guess is that the ACA will now be modified, either through the bureaucracy or executive order, to include these kinds of drugs at taxpayer expense. Due to the Supreme Court’s approach to lawsuits, we, as taxpayers, would have a hard time challenging these in Court.
I have not looked over the dissent at all, and I probably need to digest this more, so watch out for possible updates!
Megan Lowry
June 30, 2014
I am very happy with the results of this case. I think it is great that Hobby Lobby took a stand and fought for their religious rights. Since they are a “closely held” company the judged ruled in there favor. I wonder how they will handle cases of this nature that involve larger companies that are not “closely held”. This case (and of course the victory) is definitely pivotal and will have a significant impact on society.
Jeff Haymond
June 30, 2014
I thought that Justice Kennedy’s concern over this issue being put in by the bureaucracy rather than Congress in the law itself was interesting. There appears to be a concern over ever-increasing power in the executive branch, and not just Mr. Obama.
jessicastales
July 1, 2014
I was happy with these results too. Of course, this will not be the first case and it won’t be the last! I must admit I was surprised by the ruling, I really thought the Supreme Court would rule against it. However, all their points make sense, especially since Hobby Lobby is a “closely held” business.
Lauren E
July 2, 2014
This ruling was great. Now if we could only use the premise of the argument here (the government cannot force anyone to do something that would be a “significant burden” religiously) to be cross- applied to the government using taxpayer dollars to support planned parenthood clinics or using the dollars to give out the drugs since the corporations are not obligated to provide them.
Megan
July 3, 2014
I thought the Supreme Court was going to rule against, but I am very happy with this ruling. This is a great victory for Hobby Lobby. It shows that the government respects our religious freedom. I still wonder how they are going to handle future cases that arise with corporations that aren’t closely held. I believe this is the first of many cases concerning this issue.
Ryan B
July 5, 2014
I was pleased when I read about the Supreme Court’s decision as well; however, I am confused about the stance of Hobby Lobby still. They do not want to offer contraceptives to their employees for free, but they still will help pay for vasectomies. Is that not the same thing? I would like to believe they are acting in correlation with their Christian beliefs, but it does look restrictive to only women. For clarification, are they against limiting conception completely or just the abortion side of the coin?
Nathan D.
July 5, 2014
Just ones that they think cause abortions. Out of 20 forms of contraception in the mandate, they only objected to four. The other sixteen they have no problem providing.
Sarah
July 5, 2014
When I first heard of this case it touched me deeply since I am a pharmacy technician and see girls come in every week wanting the morning after pill, and of course being a Christian it hurts me even more. I can understand Hobby Lobby and not wanting to participate in this, if i had it my way I wouldn’t sell such drugs either. I am happy that the court sided with them!
hannahhale723
August 3, 2014
With this topic become “old news” as time has now passed since the uproar of Hobby Lobby’s decisions it is interesting to see how this panned out. I am proud of the company’s decision to uphold a higher level of morality for their company and employees. This is not the first time Hobby Lobby has gone against what the government wants, and I doubt it will be the last either!